DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate both the enclosed area (see Specification paragraph 21 and Figure 1) and the trumpet (see Specification paragraph 22). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification paragraph 33 refers to “wire 7B”. Such wire should be 78B, as shown in Figure 7, described by paragraph 33.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6 “the valve positions” should be --valve positions--
Claim 1 line 10 “using valve positions” should be --using the valve positions--
Claim 1 line 12 “using button states” should be --using the button states--
Claim 1 lines 13-14 “when a button is in the ON state” should be --when one of the buttons is in the ON state--
Claim 2 lines 1-2 “valve positions and button states” should be --the valve positions and the button states--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 line 2 recites the phrasing “an enclosure containing valves that emulate the valve portion of a trumpet”. The use of the phrasing “emulate” make this limitation indefinite because it is unclear as to what is required of the valves of the present invention in order to emulate a valve portion of a trumpet. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the apparatus comprises an electronic trumpet formed of an enclosure containing valves. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language any structure, function, or other feature of the valves required by the present invention and intended to be included in the scope of the claim, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 10, line 1 recites the phrasing “an electronic trumpet comprising trumpet valves and added buttons”. It is unclear as to how the buttons are “added”, particularly whether the buttons are added to the electronic trumpet in addition to an original set of buttons, whether the buttons are added to an electronic trumpet not originally having a set of buttons but added to the electronic trumpet prior to a user performing the method of playing the electronic trumpet, or whether the buttons are added to the trumpet valves. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the claim pertains to a method of playing an electronic trumpet comprising trumpet valves and buttons. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the relationship between the buttons and the electronic trumpet, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With further regards to Claim 10, line 2 recites the limitation “the player depresses the trumpet valves”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the player” in the claim language, and it is unclear as to whether “the player” intends to refer to a structure of the electronic trumpet (e.g., an electronic portion playing music or other trumpet sounds), or whether “the player” intends to refer to a user performing the method of playing the electronic trumpet. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the method of playing an electronic trumpet is performed by a player, and in performing the method, the trumpet valves are depressed by the player to select notes. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language whether the player is a feature of the invention or whether the player is a user performing the method, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With further regards to Claim 10, lines 2-4 recite the limitation “the player depresses the trumpet valves to select notes while simultaneously employing buttons for the dual purpose of first selecting the range of notes selected by the valves, and second controlling the sounding of notes or silence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrasing “the range of notes selected by the valves”, and it is unclear as to whether the notes selected by the depression of the trumpet valves of Claim 10 line 2 intends that the notes that have been selected must include a range, or whether the action of employing the buttons has a further note-limiting or note-range selecting functionality. Therefore, it is unclear as to what step is performed by the depression of the trumpet valves and the employment of the buttons. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the trumpet valves are depressed to select a range of notes while simultaneously the buttons are employed to sequentially first allow for a user to select a note within the range of notes, and second to control a sounding of the selected note or a silencing of the note. The applicant is encouraged to provide proper antecedent basis for all limitations in the claim language, and to clarify in the claim language the intended steps performed by each the depression of the valves and the employment of the buttons, particularly how the notes or range of notes are selected, fully supported by the original disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the microcontroller program using button states first to determine the range of notes selectable by the valve positions and second to sound a selected note when a button is in the ON state, and to silence the note when all buttons are in the OFF state, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regards to Claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest simultaneously employing buttons for the dual purpose of first selecting the range of notes selected by the valves, and second controlling the sounding of notes or silence, in combination with the remaining limitations of Claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Schneider (US 6,372,973), which discloses at least an apparatus including an enclosure and controller for selecting a note and for affecting an effect to the output sound from a speaker, Hirose (US 2021/0074252), which discloses at least an apparatus being an electronic wind instrument and including a controller for executing a control program that plays a sound based on an operation performed by a user, such as a pressing of a key, Sakurada (US 2005/0056139), which discloses at least an electronic trumpet including valves for selecting a note to be played and buttons for adjusting the sound output of the note, and a processor for executing programs to produce the desired sounds, and Asahi (US 2003/0209131), which discloses at least an electronic trumpet including valves for selecting a note to be played, buttons for adjusting the sound output of the note, and a processor for executing programs to produce the desired sounds, and Davey (GB 2559144), which discloses an apparatus being an electronic trumpet including an enclosure, valves for selecting a note to be sounded, speaker, and a microprocessor for executing a program for creating the sound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875